As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?
[SHEPHERD] This document is a Proposed Standard document, and is
indicated in the title page as a "Standards Track" document. This
is the proper designation for this RFC by WG consensus.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
[SHEPHERD] From the Abstract:
This document provides a RESTCONF binding to the dynamic
subscription capability of both subscribed notifications
[SHEPHERD] From the Introduction:
Mechanisms to support event subscription and push are defined in
[I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications]. Enhancements to
[I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications] which enable YANG
datastore subscription and push are defined in
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push]. This document provides a transport
specification for dynamic subscriptions over RESTCONF [RFC8040].
Driving these requirements is [RFC7923].
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
[SHEPHERD] Nothing in the process is worth noting. No decisions
were particularly rough. There was a debate as to if this
RFC should define support for *configured* subscriptions, in
additional to dynamic subscriptions, which it does support, but
the WG consensus was to add support for configured subscriptions
at a later time.
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?
[SHEPHERD] Unknown if there are any implementations of this
draft as yet. This document just went through a post-LC
YANG Doctor review (all issues raised were addressed):
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
[SHEPHERD] The Document Shepherd is Kent Watsen, with Qin Wu's
assistance. The Responsible Area Director is Ignas Bagdonas.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
[SHEPHERD] The shepherd has reviewed emails on the list, and tested
against `idnits`, and validated the YANG modules using both `pyang`
and `yanglint`. The shepherd-assistant found a number of issues
that have been resolved in the current version. Both the shepherd
and the assistant are comfortable with forwarding the document to
the IESG at this time.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
[SHEPHERD] The Shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth
of the reviews that have been performed.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
[SHEPHERD] No review from a particular or from broader perspective is
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
[SHEPHERD] There are no specific concerns or issues that the Responsible
Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
[SHEPHERD] Each author has just confirmed that any and all appropriate
IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of
BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. Here is the thread:
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
[SHEPHERD] No IPR disclosure been filed that references this document.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
[SHEPHERD] Generally solid, with many being interested in and reviewing
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
[SHEPHERD] No one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
- several false-positives: a few "weird spacing" and one
- two "outdated ref" warnings: SN-21 --> SN-23 and YP-20 --> YP-22
- one obsolete normative reference error: RFC 5246 (Obsoleted by
RFC 8446) [this will be fixed later]
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
[SHEPHERD] The document was reviewed by the YANG doctor assigned to it.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
[SHEPHERD] Yes, all references within this document been identified
as either normative or informative.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
[SHEPHERD] as mentioned above, RFC5246 is obsoleted by RFC8446 needs
to be replaced by RFC8446 in the normative references section.
Otherwise, the only quazi-questionable normative references are to
draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications and ietf-netconf-yang-push,
which are being submitted to the IESG at the same time as this draft.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.
[SHEPHERD] There are no downward normative references. IDNITS warns
about a possible downref to non-RFC "W3C-20150203", but it is okay.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
[SHEPHERD] The publication of this document will not change the status
of any existing RFCs.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
[SHEPHERD] The shepherd has reviewed the IANA Considerations section.
The document registers one URI and one YANG module. The registries
for each of them have been identified in the document.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
[SHEPHERD] There are no new IANA registries that require Expert review
for future allocations.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
[SHEPHERD] `pyang` and `yanglint` were used to validate the YANG module
defined in this document. Note that Datatracker shows YANG validation
errors, but the module validates fine on my machine (I'm using yanglint
0.16.110, whereas DataTracker is using yanglint 0.14.80).